Secular purpose

[Michael McConnell]

Ed Darrell writes, among other things, that "Behe's
criticisms of Darwinian thought are limited to the inner
workings of a cell, Behe not quarreling with Darwin's
observations on evolution of complex life."

The importance of Behe's work should not be underestimated.
The most important critique of Darwinian evolution, as I
understand it, is based on the idea of "irreducible
complexity."  Irreducible complexity exists when a life
system depends on the interaction of two or more
components, none of which has any useful function
independent of this interaction. (These are my own words,
so I apologize for unscientific imprecision.) As the number
of these components increases, it becomes mathematically
impossible for each of the components to have come about
through natural selection. Behe has shown that the most
fundamental building block of life, the cell, could not
have come about through evolution, because it is
irreducibly complex.

Of course, none of this comes close to "proving" divine
creation. The logic of that step strikes me (as an
open-minded nonspecialist) as plausible but not conclusive.
It is (roughly): that well-ordered, complex systems, which
defy the law of entropy, give rise to an inference of
intelligent design for much the reason that, if you
encounter a complex looking set of sand castles on the
beach you infer that human beings were the cause. This
inference can be defeated by showing an alternative
mechanism by which the castles (or whatever) could have
been created. (Some rock formations look like works of art,
but geology provides a persuasive account of how they could
have been created by the force of water, wind, and sand.)
Evolution theory based on natural selection purported to
provide such an explanation, but if it does not, we are
left with the inference of intelligent design, at least
until someone comes up with a better theory.

By the way, I favor the teaching of evolution in school,
but think that it would be better science if taught in
conjunction with the scientific critiques, which in turn
would provide an excellent basis for a good discussion of
philosophy of science and the relation between science and
such things as religion and morality.  Although I would
have to count myself as a skeptic about orthodox
evolutionary theory based on natural selection, I want my
children to understand the theory as deeply as is within
their capabilities. But I am inclined to think that as much
of the controversy around this issue is caused by the
dogmatism of the defenders of orthodox evolutionary theory
as by the dogmatism of "Creationists." I would be curious
to know whether any high school biology textbooks treat
this issue with the seriousness it deserves; I know that my
10th grade course presented a laughably crude version of
Darwinism, which no serious scientist could possibly defend
today.

-- Michael McConnell (U of Utah)